Monday, March 31, 2014

"Malaysia Changes Version of Last Words from Missing Flight's Cockpit."-Reuters.

Americans had heard of Malaysia before this. Knew it was a country. Knew it was in Asia. Knew its language was Asian. Americans knew Malaysia was over there by the Philippines. Somewhere.That tsunami hit there. Or nearby. It was a friendly country. Catholic. Probably. Maybe Buddhist. Malaysians look like Vietnamese. Sort of. We liked Malaysia.

Americans do not understand this. How the words got changed. The search area changed. Twice. Or more. Americans do not understand how, in 2014, you can so thoroughly lose an airplane. 

Before this, and CNN's wall-to-wall informing us, Americans didn't know shit about Malaysia. Now, some of us could pick the Malaysian PM out of a photo lineup of other Malaysians. 

You only get one chance to make a first impression.


Body language is an imperfect tongue. Bodies do communicate, however. We possessors of bodies, and of minds, interpret, and understand this non-written, non-spoken language. John Kerry has been on the public stage for many years now. We Americans know his "look." He has a very winning smile which he wears often, perhaps for a natural sunny disposition, fortunately to give breadth to a narrow face and a huge chin.

Sergey Lavrov, of course, we Americans do not know as well. His eyes are close-set and intense, his head more square, his body is more square, more square that is in body and in head than is long John Kerry. Kerry is 6'4" tall, Lavrov appears to be a couple of inches shorter. Lavrov's natural state seems to be this intensity which frequently appears to be confrontational or hostile. When seated he leans forward, Kerry, literally, is more laid back. Lavrov looks like a junkyard guard dog.

Guard dog.

Often, when people with a similar natural look to Lavrov smile broadly, it does not look...natural; they're facial muscles are forced into this unnatural state and their faces appear almost to crack. It can be grotesque. Seeing Lavrov in his natural state, it is hard to see him smiling or laughing. But, Lavrov has a wonderful, natural broad smile and a harder-to-force "intermediate" smile. He appears to have experience in it, to like it.

Let's look at these two guys together over the course of a year, a year with high highs and low lows:  

Walking in Moscow. Kerry, confident body language, former prosecutor, accomplished debater, trying to convince Lavrov that Syria should be bombed. 
He's listening. But he's not buying it.

In Geneva, after agreement on Syria. Look at Lavrov's smile! And he's a "hands-on" type of guy, who'd a thunk it! It was a triumphant moment for Lavrov. Kerry, the naturally more smiley of the two isn't quite as effervescent, he's almost sheepish. Kerry stumbled into a resolution of Syria. It was Lavrov's triumph.
Low five. Happy Days. Also on Syria. Someplace.

The "suicide-compact" photograph. Their first meeting on Ukraine. Fucking God damn!

Look at that! Never seen John Kerry look like that.

Kerry looking to the heavens. Lavrov staring vacantly.

Second meeting on Ukraine, in Paris last week. Kerry hang-dog, Lavrov smiley. Is that a gloat? Umm...face turned, hard to tell...I think it's a gloat.

Kerry-Lavrov III.

Sergie and John are walking. 

How many "firsts" do you have in English, John? THE first demand you made was for us to pull our troops out of Russian Crimea. I agreed. I said lift the sanctions now. You said, your second first, pull our troops back from the Ukraine border. I said da, now lift the sanctions. You responded with your third first, talk to the usurpers in Kiev. I agreed to that and said lift the sanctions! When are you going to lift the sanctions when we give Moscow to the Germans?

...How are you going to work this out with Kiev, Sergei? 

Okay, John, I'll play along. You won't answer my repeated demands to lift the sanctions as we make concession after concession. That's okay: I'll answer yet another question without reciprocity on the U.S. side:  For our security and the safety in Ukraine, i will work with Kiev toward recognition upon the following grounds:  We see Ukraine ultimately as a federative state. We will recognize Ukraine's government on the following conditions: each of the regions of Ukraine, and all of them together, must ratify a new constitution establishing a Ukraine federation of the regions; those regions must have autonomy over their own economic and foreign policy, and the Russian language must be recognized as an official language of Ukraine. BUT  YOU MUST LIFT THE SANCTIONS BEFORE THIS! You must lift them after we pull troops out of Crimea, remove our troops from the border and promise not to invade Ukraine. Then we will negotiation with Kiev.

Sergei, the U.S. says a big, fat, red NO! to that.
Then no pledge by us not to invade. Good night John, and good luck. 

The meeting ended on exactly that last note with no progress reported, whether they discussed the particulars of this hypothetical talk or not. The U.S. is not quite negotiating on its knees here as it was over Crimea, but it's in a close-to-the-ground crouch. We are not going to do to Ukraine what Britain did to Czechoslovakia at Munich. I'm sure Kerry told Lavrov that, told Lavrov that he is not going to speak for Kiev, and that he thought the Russian pre-conditions were absurd. Now the Americans are in the uncertain position of having properly ruled out military force to save Ukraine from a Russian invasion and all of its hopes pinned on economic and diplomatic sanctions, with doubt as to their efficacy. The U.S. has to be clarify its goals here and present them to the Russians bluntly. If you don't do what we want we will keep the sanctions in place for as long as we can avoid scratching the business uber alles itch. We should continue to isolate Russia and disintegrate the relationship. 

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Kerry-Lavrov II.

Okay, okay, you can have Crimea. 

The U.S. is going to have to do this. The people of Crimea want to be with Russia; the referendum was rushed and unfairly worded but there is no doubt that a majority want to be with Russia. Giving in on this will make Obama look bad, another red line turned green, but you cannot bargain on your knees and that is the U.S. position. From Obama to the most strident Republicans, the U.S. has, properly, ruled out a military confrontation and that is the only way Crimea would be returned to Ukraine. Conceding on Crimea is truly the least difficult of the many difficulties for the U.S. in these talks.

Now lift the sanctions.
Sergie, let's take a walk.
Okay, we will lift the sanctions BUT NO UKRAINE, SERGEI! Big red line, there. REALLY red. BIG.
Okay. We will not invade. Lift the sanctions.
Pull your troops back off the border first.
Okay, we will pull them off the border and I will sign that we will not invade and then you lift the sanctions.
Work this out with the Ukrainian gov...
...Coup leaders.
...With the Ukrainian representatives in Kiev first.
Lift the sanctions!

The invasion and annexation of Crimea were the cause of the sanctions. Russia does not like them and wants them lifted but it's not giving Crimea back. Once the U.S. acknowledges, even implicitly by not bringing it up, that Russia has Crimea for good, how does it leverage its sanctions? One idea essentially is tit-for-tat, forever. That is, disengage from Russia. After a generation of integrating them...disintegrate them!, i.e. isolate them. Kicking Russia out of the G8 was an act of disintegration. There is much that is appealing to disintegration! But then they wouldn't be talking. Putin wouldn't have called Obama, Kerry wouldn't have flown to Paris. Russia doesn't want that. So permanent sanctions are not the preferred option, at least. And at least for now. The idea doesn't sound credible. Bush43 sanctioned Russia after the Georgia war--and lifted them after a year. It takes a lot of discipline, and a willingness to endure some economic pain oneself to sustain sanctions. Pursuit of happiness types don't do economic sanctions well. But lifting the sanctions now, as in the imaginary dialogue above, also t'ain't gonna happen! They've been in place for what, two weeks? Obama just came back from Europe. No. The sanctions are worth something, they are worth something to the Russians. Kerry can't get Crimea back with the sanctions. What can he get?

The Kerry-Lavrov talks. Version I.

Now? We haven't even disagreed yet.
Okay. Sergei, pull your troops out of Crimea.
Okay. And you lift the sanctions.
You have to give Crimea back to Ukraine first.
Now we can walk.

Obama has said the U.S. will never recognize the referendum giving Russia control over Crimea. Putin has said Crimea is Russian, the Russian legislature has approved Crimea's "application" to join the Russian Federation. It's a done deal. Could Kerry get around that?

Hold another referendum, one with choices other than Russia and Russia, with international monitors, yada-yada. If the Crimeans vote da she's yours, if the Crimeans vote nyet, give it back.

I don't think so. Version I would end one of two ways:



Let me call Vladimir.

"Ukraine's Hopes Riding on a Chocolatier."-New York Times.

Good day, fellow members.

That is not a headline that inspires an over abundance of confidence, is it? No it is not. Hope they haven't placed their hopes for military defense on truffle vs tanks. 

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Never good to get one of those.  Have...un-disabled account. Only thing I can see that is different is that I, Benjamin Harris, am now a "Member" of Public Occurrences. Am in very good company there but, did not do that, don't know how to do that, don't know how to un-do that. Tried. Good night. Hope to see you tomorrow.
On this early Sunday morning, all within the last half-hour, are these headlines from the world's media as aggregated by Google News under one subject, Russia:

The last of these is from the BBC. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was on the plane, in the air, flying home when he abruptly instructed his pilots to turn and take him to Paris.  Malaysian radar lost him at that point. Kerry will be meeting with Lavrov on Ukraine. Doesn't say if the Pentagon has been informed. Can't have been bad that Putin called Obama--was that yesterday? Bet Putin put something in writing as Obama asked him to. Bet it was on Ukraine. Hope it wasn't on the C-section on the dead porcupine. Don't know what strength weed the news aggregators in Mountain View are smoking.

Don't give it to a Russian.

“We have absolutely no intentions or interest in crossing the borders of Ukraine.”
                                                                     -Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

That is a good statement. But let's see if we can find a dark cloud within that silver lining...Okay, I got one. He didn't say we "will not" invade, right? If I say "I have no intentions or interest in getting married" that is still not the same as saying "I will not get married." See? cloud. Oh! And, didn't Putin say "We will not invade Crimea" or the equivalent? Swine double-talking Rooskis!

Friday, March 28, 2014


Search keyword if the day.

what happens at a penis eruption.

Putin Called Obama.

That cannot be a bad thing. Below are the official "readouts," first from and then from

President Putin called U.S. President Barack Obama today. President Putin asked President Obama if he was Muslim. President Obama said he was not. President Putin then asked President Obama if a fifth column was behind the t-shirts being worn by Ukrainian young women with the message "Don't give it to a Russian." President Obama said there was not. President Putin concluded the telephone call by asking President Obama if he would like an autographed copy of a photograph of President Putin bare chested. President Obama replied by asking President Putin if he would like an autographed photograph of him, President Obama, bare chested. President Putin told President Obama that he could take him at arm wrestling or rock, paper, scissors, shoot. President Obama said maybe at arm wrestling or rock, paper, scissors, but not at shoot.



Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Barack Obama.

The two leaders continued exchanging views on the crisis in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin drew Barack Obama’s attention to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents, government authorities and law enforcement agencies in various regions and in Kiev with impunity.

In light of this, the President of Russia suggested examining possible steps the global community can take to help stabilise the situation. The two presidents agreed that specific parameters for this joint work will be discussed by the Russian and US foreign ministers in the near future.

Vladimir Putin also pointed out that Transnistria is essentially experiencing a blockade, which significantly complicate the living conditions for the region’s residents, impeding their movement and normal trade and economic activities. He stressed that Russia stands for the fair and comprehensive settlement of the Transnistria conflict and hopes for effective work in the existing 5+2 negotiation format.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 28, 2014

Readout of the President’s Call with President Putin

President Putin called President Obama today to discuss the U.S. proposal for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, which Secretary Kerry had again presented to Foreign Minister Lavrov at the meeting at the Hague earlier this week, and which we developed following U.S. consultations with our Ukrainian and European partners. President Obama suggested that Russia put a concrete response in writing and the presidents agreed that Kerry and Lavrov would meet to discuss next steps.

President Obama noted that the Ukrainian government continues to take a restrained and de-escalatory approach to the crisis and is moving ahead with constitutional reform and democratic elections, and urged Russia to support this process and avoid further provocations, including the buildup of forces on its border with Ukraine.

President Obama underscored to President Putin that the United States continues to support a diplomatic path in close consultation with the Government of Ukraine and in support of the Ukrainian people with the aim of de-escalation of the crisis. President Obama made clear that this remains possible only if Russia pulls back its troops and does not take any steps to further violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. President Obama reiterated that the United States has strongly opposed the actions that Russia has already taken to violate Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Rape of Ukraine.

The Russians are establishing supply lines and their troops on the border with Ukraine are concealing their positions. Training exercises, schraming exercises. The conditions laid down by Lavrov for recognition, that is, for non-invasion, of Ukraine are impossible. Russia will invade. Most likely Russia will invade during that "window of opportunity" identified by Foreign Policy from mid-April to mid-May. Meanwhile, the West goes on as if this is not going to happen, which may be more accurate and authoritative than Foreign Policy magazine, or then again, not. The U.S. has approved a $1 billion "loan" to Ukraine and the IMF $15 billion, I think that was the amount. Now, West: if Russia invades and de facto takes over, even by establishing a puppet government, wouldn't all those billions go to Russia, de facto?

The window of opportunity (Hereinafter, the W.o.O or woo, after the American practice of abbreviating everything) is a window of Russian military readiness and of Ukrainian lack of readiness. Ukraine cannot fight effectively right now. So, Ukraine, U.S., Britain, you latter two written guarantors (along with Rus) of Ukraine's sovereignty: why not "Berlin Wall" the Ukrainian side of the border? Mine it! Lay anti-tank and anti-personnel mines along the border. Like on the border between North and South Korea. Make the Rooskis paratroop in. Lot harder to paratroop in; paratroopers are sitting, well, gliding ducks. 

Thursday, March 27, 2014

I dated a Lutheran once. Well...married. Married a Lutheran, she was American. Then I married an Irish (American) girl. Catholic. Of course. One...two, no three, Jewish girls. Dated, not married. American, not Israeli. Nothing exotic. Carmen's Cuban (American). So...I've gotten around. America.
My son dated a lovely Ukrainian girl for two years...He's not Russian either. Before that he dated a French girl. Now he's dating a Japanese girl...My son isn't so much dating as taking a United Nations tour. 
It is my day to be bad, though. Shit. No! That's it. I shan't.
Look, I would like props here for my restraint on the last two posts? I would like...True, I did have that artwork on the header with all those guys dressed in black pointing guns when the "Goop" post was the lead...but c'mon! My only written comment was, at the bottom, a discreet "I see." That was it! Do you know how bad that could have been! And on the last post: Nothink! I let the think stand by itself, res ipsa loquitur baby! No lecherous Vavavavoomski, no last minute tickets to Kiev purchased. Yet. No! No! No! I won't buy any plane tickets to Kiev. No...complimentary t-shirts proudly, boldly proclaiming, "I am not now nor have I ever been Russian." No! Nyet! Not even that, I say. It's called restraint, Pilgrim, discipline, ma-toor-ity. I got lots and lots of Ma-toor-ity. So, props.

"Don't give it to a Russian."

Name of patriotic movement by Ukrainian young women.


Dr. Habib Sadeghi & Dr. Sherry Sami

on Conscious Uncoupling

Divorce is a traumatic and difficult decision for all parties involved—and there’s arguably no salve besides time to take that pain away. However, when the whole concept of marriage and divorce is reexamined, there’s actually something far more powerful—and positive—at play.

The media likes to throw around the statistic that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It turns out that’s accurate: Many people are concerned about the divorce rate and see it as an important problem that needs to be fixed. But what if divorce itself isn’t the problem? What if it’s just a symptom of something deeper that needs our attention? The high divorce rate might actually be a calling to learn a new way of being in relationships.
Until Death Do Us Part

During the upper Paleolithic period of human history (roughly 50,000BC to 10,000BC) the average human life expectancy at birth was 33.[i] By 1900, U.S. life expectancy was only 46 for men, and 48 for women. Today, it’s 76 and 81 respectively.[ii] During the 52,000 years between our Paleolithic ancestors and the dawn of the 20th Century, life expectancy rose just 15 years. In the last 114 years, it’s increased by 43 years for men, and 48 years for women.

What does this have to do with divorce rates? For the vast majority of history, humans lived relatively short lives—and accordingly, they weren’t in relationships with the same person for 25 to 50 years. Modern society adheres to the concept that marriage should be lifelong; but when we’re living three lifetimes compared to early humans, perhaps we need to redefine the construct. Social research suggests that because we’re living so long, most people will have two or three significant long-term relationships in their lifetime.

To put in plainly, as divorce rates indicate, human beings haven’t been able to fully adapt to our skyrocketing life expectancy. Our biology and psychology aren’t set up to be with one person for four, five, or six decades. This is not to suggest that there aren’t couples who happily make these milestones—we all hope that we’re one of them. Everyone enters into a marriage with the good intention to go all the way, but this sort of longevity is the exception, rather than the rule. It’s important to remember too, that just because someone is still married doesn’t mean they’re happy or that the relationship is fulfilling. To that end, living happily ever after for the length of a 21st century lifetime should not be the yardstick by which we define a successful intimate relationship: This is an important consideration as we reform the concept of divorce.
End of the Honeymoon

Nearly everyone comes into a new marriage idealizing their partner. Everything is perfect in their minds because they’ve misidentified what marriage is really about. As far as they’re concerned, they’ve found the love of their life, the person who understands them completely. Yes, there will be hiccups in the process, but by and large, there’s no more learning left to do. They’ll both be the same people 10 or 20 years from now as they are today. When we idealize our partners, things initially go very well as we project positive qualities onto them. This is called the honeymoon phase.

Sooner or later, the honeymoon ends and reality sets in. This is usually when we stop projecting positive things onto our partners and begin to project our negative issue onto them instead. Unfortunately, this creates a boomerang effect as these negative issues always come right back to us, triggering our unconscious and long-buried negative internal objects, which are our deepest hurts, betrayals, and traumas. This back-and-forth process of projection and aggravation can escalate to the point where it impacts our psychic structure with even more trauma.

Because we believed so strongly in the “until death do us part” concept, we see the demise of our marriage as a failure, bringing with it shame, guilt, or regret. Since most of us don’t want to face what we see as a personal failure, we retreat into resentment and anger, and resort to attacking each other instead. We’ve put on our armor and we’re ready to do battle. What we don’t realize is that while a full body shield may offer a level of self-protection, it’s also a form of self-imprisonment that locks us inside a life that repeats the same mistakes over and over again.
Intimacy & Insects

To understand what life is really like living with an external shield, we have to examine the experts: Insects. Beetles, grasshoppers, and all other insects have an exoskeleton. The structure that protects and supports their body is on the outside. Not only are they stuck in a rigid, unchanging form that provides no flexibility, they are also at the mercy of their environment. If they find themselves under the heel of a shoe, it’s all over. That’s not the only downside: Exoskeletons can calcify, leading to buildup and more rigidity.

By contrast, vertebrates like dogs, horses, and humans have an endoskeleton. Our support structure is on the inside of our bodies, giving us exceptional flexibility and mobility to adapt and change under a wide range of circumstances. The price for this gift is vulnerability: Our soft outside is completely exposed to hurt and harm every day.

Life is a spiritual exercise in evolving from an exoskeleton for support and survival to an endoskeleton. Think about it. When we get our emotional support and wellbeing from outside ourselves, everything someone says or does can set us off and ruin our day. Since we can’t control or predict what another person does, our moods are at the mercy of our environment. We can’t adapt to the situation if our intimate partner doesn’t behave the way we think they should. Everything is then perceived as a personal attack and attempt to upset us. Up goes our armor and it’s all-out war.

With an internal support structure, we can stand strong because our stability doesn’t depend on anything outside ourselves. We can be vulnerable and pay attention to what’s happening around us, knowing that whatever comes, we have the flexibility to adapt to the situation. There’s a reason we call cowards spineless: It takes great courage to drop your armor, expose your soft inside, and come to terms with the reality of what’s happening around you. It’s a powerful thing to then realize that you can survive it. When we examine our intimate relationships from this perspective, we realize that they aren’t for finding static, lifelong bliss like we see in the movies. They’re for helping us evolve a psycho-spiritual spine, a divine endoskeleton made from conscious self-awareness so that we can evolve into a better life without recreating the same problems for ourselves again and again. When we learn to find our emotional and spiritual support from inside ourselves, nothing that changes our environment or relationships can unsettle us.

There’s a scientific theory by Russian esotericist, Peter Ouspensky, that the creation of insects was a failed attempt by nature to evolve a higher form of consciousness. There was a time millions of years ago when insects were enormous—a dragonfly’s wings were three feet across. So why didn’t they end up being the dominant species on earth? Because they lacked flexibility, which is what evolution is all about, and couldn’t adapt to changing conditions like humans can. The lives of people who imprison themselves in an exoskeleton of anger usually don’t evolve the way they’d like them to, either. Being trapped inside negative energy like anger and resentment keeps people from moving forward in life because they can only focus on the past. Even worse, over time, these powerful emotions often turn into disease in the body.
Conscious Uncoupling

To change the concept of divorce, we need to release the belief structures we have around marriage that create rigidity in our thought process. The belief structure is the all-or-nothing idea that when we marry, it’s for life. The truth is, the only thing any of us have is today. Beyond that, there are no guarantees. The idea of being married to one person for life is too much pressure for anyone. In fact, it would be interesting to see how much easier couples might commit to each other by thinking of their relationship in terms of daily renewal instead of a lifetime investment. This is probably the reason why so many people say their long-term relationships changed overnight, once they got married. The people didn’t change, but the expectation did.

If we can recognize that our partners in our intimate relationships are our teachers, helping us evolve our internal, spiritual support structure, we can avoid the drama of divorce and experience what we call a conscious uncoupling. A conscious uncoupling is the ability to understand that every irritation and argument was a signal to look inside ourselves and identify a negative internal object that needed healing. Because present events always trigger pain from a past event, it’s never the current situation that needs the real fixing. It’s just the echo of an older emotional injury. If we can remain conscious of this during our uncoupling, we will understand it’s how we relate to ourselves internally as we go through an experience that’s the real issue, not what’s actually happening.

From this perspective, there are no bad guys, just two people, each playing teacher and student respectively. When we understand that both are actually partners in each other’s spiritual progress, animosity dissolves much quicker and a new paradigm for conscious uncoupling emerges, replacing the traditional, contentious divorce. It’s only under these circumstances that loving co-parenting can happen. It’s conscious uncoupling that prevents families from being broken by divorce and creates expanded families that continue to function in a healthy way outside of traditional marriage.
Wholeness in Separation

It seems ironic to say that a marriage coming apart is the cause of something else coming together, but it’s true. Conscious uncoupling brings wholeness to the spirits of both people who choose to recognize each other as their teacher. If they do, the gift they receive from their time together will neutralize their negative internal object that was the real cause of their pain in the relationship. If we can allow ourselves this gift, our exoskeleton of protection and imprisonment will fall away and offer us the opportunity to begin constructing an endoskeleton, an internal cathedral, with spiritual trace minerals like self-love, self-acceptance, and self-forgiveness. This process allows us to begin projecting something different into the world because we’ve regained a missing part of our heart. This addition to our psychic infrastructure creates a wholeness that supports our own growth and ability to co-parent consciously.
Coming Together

The misunderstandings involved in divorce also have much to do with the lack of intercourse between our own internal masculine and feminine energies. Choosing to hide within an endoskeleton and remain in attack mode requires a great imbalance of masculine energy. Feminine energy is the source of peacemaking, nurturing, and healing. Cultivating your feminine energy during this time is beneficial to the success of conscious uncoupling. When our masculine and feminine energies reach equilibrium once more, we can emerge from our old relationship and consciously call in someone who reflects our new world, not the old one.

Naturally, divorce is much easier if both parties choose to have a conscious uncoupling. However, your experience and personal growth isn’t conditional on whether or not your spouse chooses to participate. You can still receive the lessons he or she has to give you, resist being baited into dramatic arguments, and stand firm in your internal, spiritual support system. By choosing to handle your uncoupling in a conscious way, regardless of what’s happening with your spouse, you’ll see that although it looks like everything is coming apart; it’s actually all coming back together.

[i] Hillard Kaplan, Kim Hill, Jane Lancaster, and A. Magdalena Hurtado (2000). A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence and Longevity". Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (4): 156–185. doi:10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::aid-evan5>3.0.CO;2-7.

[ii] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Life expectancy at birth, at age 65, and at age 75, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 1900-2010. National vital statistics system . United states 2011 web updates Washington D.C.: National center for healthcare statistics.

I see.

Scholars (et al).

Intellectualoids and other elite-types representing the following institutions have come hither recently in mistaken search for pubic occurrences. I would bet.

Sixth Form. Sixth Form?

I don't know if I have ever mentioned this previously, I think I have, but Cindy Crawford went to Purdue.

I don't know if I ever mentioned this previously, but Cindy Crawford did not go to the Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg. That I know of.

Oh. Fuck you.

Why does Rice play Texas?

I checked this one. Would have bet this scholar clicked on one of the Penn State posts. No, China.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014


Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has decided to run for president and is resigning as head of the military to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Al-Sisi will be the candidate of the Genocide Party.
Fat boy has a new hairstyle.

Monsters live the most inn-teresting lives, my stars.

Russia, US.

“Putin nurses a grudge, because what he says is that at the end of the Cold War, when Russia was flat on its back, we walked all over them. And we did it because they were weak. Technically he has a point. We pushed the borders of NATO right into the former Soviet Union. We denounced [sic, renounced] the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] treaty and so on and so forth. We didn’t do it to weaken the Russians; we did it because we thought it was useful. But - that gnaws at him.”
-Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to President George H.W. Bush.

I see. So, "technically," he's right, we "walked all over them," by expanding NATO, renouncing ABM and "so forth." Could you elaborate on "so forth?" I move for a statement of particulars on "so forth." Not that expanding NATO and renouncing ABM is insufficient walking all over them. And, "we did it because they were weak." I see. So we kicked them when they were down, "technically?" We did NOT do those things to weaken Russia? Why, because they already were weak, gotcha. We did it, those things because they were weak AND "we thought it was useful." Move for statement of particulars on how we thought it was useful.

Damn Putin. All that "gnaws at him," can you believe that guy?

In Ukraine's Fields.

President Obama was at a World War I memorial today along with other dignitaries. This year is the 100th anniversary of the start. Roger Cohen of The New York Times repeatedly has written of the parallels between 2014 and 1914. King Philippe unmistakably draws the same parallels when he says, "Our countries have learned the hard way that national sovereignty quickly reaches its limits when confronted to its heavily armed adversary who do not respect that sovereignty."  Maybe they are right. It is personal for Mr. Cohen, it is obviously personal for the king of Belgium. I had a grandfather fight in WWI, he lived. Maybe for that reason WWI is not personal for me, maybe that is why I do not see the parallel...I just don't see it. Obama does not draw the parallel in his remarks but maybe he intended his visit to do it for him, I don't know. I just don't see it. Here are the remarks by each of those in attendance:

HIS MAJESTY KING PHILIPPE: Mr. President, we are deeply moved to stand here with you amidst the graves of brave American soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom. We remember and honor all those who took part in the First World War and who were killed or maimed, and those who, even if they survived, were often scarred forever by the dreadful experience. We will always be grateful for the sacrifice.

The United States of America fought side-by-side with Belgium and other European nations. As President Woodrow Wilson said, “There is a price which is too great to pay for peace, and that price can be put in one word. One cannot pay the price of self-respect.”

For Belgium, this was true when my great-grandfather, King Albert I, led our country in its rejection of the Kaiser’s ultimatum, and defended Belgium’s status of neutrality. The horrors of the trench warfare, including the use of chemical weapons for the first time ever in world history, the deaths of so many soldiers -- all this was the acid bath in which many of the old beliefs were dissolved.

The First World War led to many changes in all our countries. Many reforms were introduced in the following years. However, the so-called “war to end all wars” was followed by an even more brutal one, which engulfed most of the world and which, moreover, saw the heartrending atrocity of the Holocaust.

Our countries have learned the hard way that national sovereignty quickly reaches its limits when confronted to its heavily armed adversary who do not respect that sovereignty. Thanks to visionary people, we started on the road of European integration. It was and remains a rocky road, but we are truly convinced that it is the only one. Today, international cooperation, both regional and global, is more than ever necessary to roll back the scourge of war and violence with the tragic wake of human suffering.

This year’s ceremonies of remembrance must inspire all peace-loving nations to continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to spread the rule of law, human rights, and respect for each other. This is the best bulwark against war.

I know that the United States and Belgium will continue to stand together in this endeavor.

PRIME MINISTER DI RUPO: President Obama, Your Majesty, ladies and gentlemen: We are gathered today to remember -- to remember the millions of soldiers and civilians who died during the First World War in Belgium and in the rest of Europe; and here, in Waregem, to especially remember the Americans who lost their lives in our cities and our countryside.

On behalf of Belgium, I will honor their memory and thank them and their families for their terrible sacrifice -- a sacrifice that will remain a part of our history and will always have a place in the heart of the Belgian and American people. We will never forget.

Mr. President, Your Majesty, the ties between Belgium and the United States of America are very strong. I have said this before and I’m saying it again today in the presence of President Obama: We, the Belgian and America peoples, share and cherish the same values of freedom, democracy, and progress. We have fought long and hard to obtain them, and we must work hard every day to keep them alive.

These values are our most precious gift to our young people and future generation. Therefore, we have to continue to draw lessons for the terrible war that started 100 years ago. And above all, we have to prevent new conflicts. Those who ignore the past are taking the risk to relive it. Each step to reconcile difference is a step away from war. Each step to open up our hearts and minds is a step toward peace.

Mr. President, Your Majesty, ladies and gentlemen, the American sons who fell on our soil are our sons. I promise you, Mr. President, that we will always keep their memory alive. At the same time, we will never forget our Second World War liberators. They, as well, were examples of courage. We are determined to ensure (inaudible) of peace, democracy and human rights. We are determined to ensure the integrity of frontiers and the respect of international law. Here next to these graves, we make a solemn commitment to continue our efforts to promote peace and solidarity amongst people.

Mr. President, Your Majesty, the guns fell silent a long time ago, as did the voices of the fallen soldiers. But their example will always continue to inspire us.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Your Majesty King Philippe, Prime Minister Di Rupo, I'm honored to be here today. Thank you for welcoming me to this sacred place. To the staff of Flanders Field Cemetery and the people of Belgium, thank you for your devotion, watching over those who rest here and preserving these hallowed grounds for all of us who live in their debt.

As His Majesty and the Prime Minister mentioned, we just spent some quiet moments among the final resting places of young men who fell nearly a century ago. And it is impossible not to be awed by the profound sacrifice they made so that we might stand here today. In this place, we remember the courage of “Brave Little Belgium.” Here, we visited the grave of a young Polish immigrant to America who just a few hours into his very first battle gave his life for his adopted country. And here, we saw the headstones of two men from Brooklyn, New York, who lay as they fought -- side-by-side.

Here, we also see that no soldier -- and no nation --sacrificed alone. I’m told that this is one of more than 100 cemeteries tucked into the quiet corners of this beautiful countryside. It’s estimated that beneath about 50 square miles there rest hundreds of thousands of men -- Belgian and American, French and Canadian, British and Australian, and so many others.

We talked about how many of the Americans who fought on Belgian soil during the Great War did so under the command of His Majesty’s great-grandfather, King Albert. And while they didn’t always share a common heritage or even a common language, the soldiers who manned the trenches were united by something larger -- a willingness to fight, and die, for the freedom that we enjoy as their heirs.

Long after those guns fell silent, this bond has endured. Belgians and Americans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies in World War II and through a long Cold War, then from Afghanistan to Libya. And today, Belgium is one of our closest partners in the world -- a strong and capable ally. And thanks to the extraordinary alliance between our two nations, we know a level of peace and prosperity that those who fought here could scarcely have imagined.

And so before visiting the cemetery, His Majesty, the Prime Minister and I were able to spend some time together. I was very grateful for the opportunity. It was a chance to reaffirm our commitment to keep as strong as they’ve ever been the bonds between our nations -- a determination that I know is shared by the American and Belgian people.

Here today, I’d also note that the lessons of that war speak to us still. Our nations are part of the international effort to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons -- the same kinds of weapons that were used to such devastating effect on these very fields. We thought we had banished their use to history, and our efforts send a powerful message that these weapons have no place in a civilized world. This is one of the ways that we can honor those who fell here.

And so this visit, this hallowed ground, reminds us that we must never, ever take our progress for granted. We must commit perennially to peace, which binds us across oceans.

In 1915, a Canadian doctor named John McCrae sat in the back of an ambulance not far from here, and wrote a poem about the heavy sacrifice he had seen. They became some of the most cherished and well-known words from that war. And they ended with a plea:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

What is lesser known is that three years after he wrote those words -- and thousands of miles away -- an American schoolteacher named Moina Michael read McCrae’s poem. And she was so moved that she wrote a response:

Oh! you who sleep in “Flanders Fields,”

Sleep sweet -- to rise anew!

We caught the torch you threw

And holding high, we keep the Faith

With All who died.

Your Majesty, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you again. What I’ve seen at Flanders Field will stay with me always. To all who sleep here, we can say we caught the torch, we kept the faith, and Americans and Belgians will always stand together for freedom, for dignity, and for the triumph of the human spirit.

May God bless you. May God bless the memory of all who rest beneath these fields. And may God bless the peoples of both our nations.

11:31 A.M. CET


For those who make the parallel, who the hell is Gavrilo Princip in today's events? 

Russia, Ukraine, and all that.

There are a couple of very informative articles today, only one of which I cite as I done forgot where the other one was at. For the very informative post the undersigned done writ on "Transnistria" and its very hot "Foreign Minister" the undersigned consulted "maps." Some American general, "Breedlove," opined on the weekend that Putin could be massing troops on the eastern and southern borders with Ukraine in order to make a "dash" for the Transistor entity and thence into Moldova. It would have to be a splashy dash the undersigned cartographer thought as the prizes of Transnistria and Moldova were separated from nearest Russia, the shiny new Russian territory of Crimea, by the Black Sea. And even then, Russian liberators would have to cross someones foreign territory, most likely sovereign Ukraine's at a relatively narrow patch proximate to Odessa. Which would violate Putin's stated intention not to (further) violate sovereign Ukraine. The article that I forgot mentioned this logistical difficulty which enhanced the confidence of the undersigned in reading maps, which confidence he was lacking theretofore.

Comes now an article in Foreign Policy,, the upshot of which is this-here: Putin t'ain't gonna make no splashy dash. If Putin does anything more than posture, which the article implies and the undersigned re-implies, he's going to do it where he has, like, the troops, on the southern and eastern borders with Ukraine. He will thus transverse the breadth of Ukraine, liberating Russian-speaking cul-de-sacs along the way and neutering Ukraine, not to mention, killing a vast number of Ukrainians. The FP article says that Putin has a military "window of opportunity" from roughly mid-April to mid-May to begin the Rape of Ukraine.

Why the Rape of Ukraine is plausible, nay probable, says FP, is that Russia does not recognize the current Ukraine government, which the undersigned knew already, duh, and that Sergei Lavrov, who is not hot, but who is the Foreign Minister of Russia, has said that Russian recognition is dependent on Ukraine adopting a new constitution that (1) must be approved by all regions of Ukraine, the undersigned infers this means that those Russian-speaking cul-de-sacs are big cul-de-sacs, making approval by all dicey. (2) must render Ukraine a "federative" state, which sounded okay to the undersigned as America is a federative state (Isn't it?), with the Federative Papers, yada-yada, but which the undersigned inferred is not the character of the Ukrainian state currently nor previous to the upset in Crimea. The undersigned guesses that maybe Ukraine was "centralized." Or something. (3) gives to those aforementioned regions autonomy to pursue their own foreign and economic policies!!!!!, which the undersigned recognizes is a horse of a different color from the American federative state at least prior to Marbury v Madison. And its progeny. (4) must recognize Russian as an official language. None of which the undersigned knew. The undersigned can see however that none of that shit is going to happen or happen over Ukraine's dead body. Which it might.

Thus, the FP article. And that other one.

It becomes us to record here also that on this day the "Bishop of Bling" is kaput. Pope Francis accepted the "resignation" of Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst who is now free to assume his true calling as attendant in a gay bathhouse.

Does America Still Work?

It becomes our disagreeable duty to report that while POTUS was in Amsterdam yesterday a "Secret Service" agent trained to guard POTUS was on the floor of the hotel lobby in a condition "three sheets to the wind." Two other "Secret Service" agents were also observed to be impaired on hooch and all three have been shuffled off to Buffalo.

This unhappy incident follows the sacking of that drunk, lecherous general, but he was only in charge of America's nuclear arsenal and that only happened on friendly territory, practically home, in Rus, and the cashiering of several members of the "Secret Service" in Cartagena, Colombia after imbibing excesses and procurement of "ladies of the town." Oh, and then there was Petraeus.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

To my friend, to Dr. Weimin Mo, on his birthday. I love that picture. Weimin sees. Such a good man, such a good friend. Happy birthday, Weimin. A Poznan for Weimin!

I tis ovuh, i tis ovuh at Old Traffud. Citeh have won fah the thud strite time heah, a comprehensive three-nil thrashing of United.

God's Angels in Sky Blue are now second in the league, three points behind that Rooski Abramovich's blue devils but with two games in hand. United are twelve back of fourth place! There will be no Europe next year for them. Poor David Moyes, goodness gracious. A shocking first campaign for him.
I only have access to a TV when I'm at Carmen's, most always only on the weekend, so I did not know until last weekend that CNN had morphed into MH370-NN. All day, all the time. Surprised?...Yes, yes, I was surprised. But Roger Cohen?...This is funny, and excellent writing once again.


This guy Putin has got a plan--Not for sure what it is!--but he's got a plan. Putin's a "serious strategist" Henry Kissinger wrote recently...If you try to substitute names there: "This guy Obama has got a plan," "Obama's a 'serious strategist'"...No. Putin met with some Russian "oligarchs" the other day. His message: "Come home, oligarchs." And bring your money. Something like $64 billion left Mother Russia last year. If you're a Russian (Putin is a Russian) that is nyet good no matter how you look at it. Putin's message was a tactic, a tactic to defeat US and European economic sanctions. Russian oligarchs money has fled to "tax havens." The "country" listed as the fourth leading "investor" in Russia is...Jersey.

The top three are Cyprus, British Virgin Islands, and Luxembourg.

If this guy Putin's message of de-offshorizatsiya, de-offshoreization resonates with the oligarchs, all that money will be beyond the reach of America and Europe, with or without sanctions, and within the reach of Comrade Putin.
Roger Cohen is lucid again. Cohen is still hiding under the bed in Lithuania but this is more than lucid, it is excellent writing.

The dream flickered briefly after the end of the Cold War: a shared space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, Russia gathered into a close association with NATO, or even becoming an alliance member, and the European Union working in cooperation with Moscow on the modernization of the country.

It was a nice idea, like the end of history, and as with many nice ideas, it did not come to pass.

Vladimir Putin, a former K.G.B. agent obsessed with the loss of the Soviet imperium, had a different idea...[the] vision of a revived imperium...

The culmination of this process sees Putin...pitted against America’s languid leg-crossing law professor and the pastor’s methodical daughter in Berlin. Neither of these leaders of the West (whose feelings for each other are cool) will utter of Crimea those four resonant words: “This will not stand.”

Putin notices this unuttered sentence. He notes the flaccid body language in the White House, the post-modern man’s teleprompter, the bloodlessness of the liberal realism emanating from the Oval Office. He hears the Kremlin phone ring and mutters, no, not Angela again, with her reasonable pleas. Germany, unified by America but nullified by it too, was far better when there were two of them.

He has heard the lectures, the veiled and not-so-veiled threats, the expressions of outrage. Let them squeal!

Putin laughs at the theory that the West lost the Lisbon-to-Vladivostok dream and turned him into the conspiracy-spouting strongman he is through ...its decision to expand NATO eastward into the Baltic states, its enlargement of the European Union, and its general lack of solicitous regard toward Moscow.

No, he was always this way...

But America had grown weaker since then. Its wars did not get won. Its red lines did not count for much. Its doctrine was indistinct, an endless series of improvisations whose bottom line was no more shooting wars. All it threatened was visa bans! Weakness was an attitude against which Russia had roused itself.

Putin knows Germany and the United States need him for Iran, need him for Syria, need him for Russia’s energy. He has them where he wants them.

Or Putin thinks so most of the time. But what was it Angela Merkel was saying in her fifth phone call about Russia’s self-isolation? How dare she suggest he had reached a point where black was white, day was night, and two plus two was five!

What was she parroting about Russia’s dependence on European trade? What was that talk of testing the resilience of the Russian economy if he did not step back from the illegal seizure of Crimea and unacceptable threats to east Ukraine? Were the Chinese really unhappy that Crimea could give Taiwan ideas? Did some people honestly think Simferopol was the desperate gambit of a Russian president who had lost Kiev and Ukraine?

Every now and again, in the gilded mirrors of the Kremlin, Putin glimpses his reflection and struggles to avert his eyes: a small man with six-pack abs, eyes cold and pale as a glacier, and a maniacal grin. The agent in his labyrinth.

Boy oh boy, that is good writing. Cohen is not struggling here!

"America’s languid leg-crossing law professor," "flaccid body language;" "pastor’s methodical daughter in Berlin."  Very interesting observations. Wonder if they're true. Putin sees himself as a steely He-man and Obama as a limp-dicked "languid leg-crossing law professor." Obama does that! Obama is that! Wait...I see a man: young, handsome, the epitome of cool, legs crossed too, sitting in a rocking chair: JFK. Sized up by Khrushchev in much the same way: a lazy, privileged, pretty boy. Mistake, Khrushchev. 

Merkel "the pastor's methodical daughter." I don't see "weakness" in that image. Because she is a child of a pastor? Because she's female? I don't get that one.

"This will not stand." Got that one: Bush 41. On Iraq. After, a grocer's daughter scolded him "not to go wooly in the knees." Bush invaded and kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. So, why is Cohen using "This will not stand?" Does he want the U.S. to invade Crimea to kick Putin out? 


How is what has been done and is being done to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt not genocide? Where is the outrage? Where are the UN resolutions? Where is the United States?


"Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group."

Don't know if that is the "official" definition but it is Wikipedia's definition. By that definition, the exclusive targeting and killing, the "systematic destruction" of the Muslim Brotherhood is genocide.

Is this genocide?

Over 1,000 killed last year, the vast majority Muslim Brotherhood; 500+ Brotherhood sentenced to death yesterday, 682 Bros on trial today. Only the Muslim Brotherhood targeted. Is this genocide? Does genocide apply when a political party is targeted for extermination? Probably not. How about when the political party is exclusively one religion? I don't know, probably not, I guess, but I don't know. I'll have to look up genocide.


Hey: 682 more of the Brothers went on trial today. 

Russia, etc.

The President of the United States gave some speech today in "THE HAGUE," which is in "THE NETHERLANDS." POTUS was there to make sure the Europeans don't go all "wooly in the knees" over Rus. In the course of shearing the 'Peans of their wool POTUS referred to Rus as only "a regional power." 

Clever, no?  Putting Russia in its place: a "regional power," not the other half of the "bi" in the bipolar world that Putin wants Rus to be. A put-down without a throw-down. No, it wasn't clever, it was a throw-down, a bitchy throw-down. Don't be a bitch, Obama. If you're going to slam somebody, do it like a man.

Why be so gratuitously dismissive of another country's ambition? Why now, in this context especially? The Obamas HATE Vladimir Putin, and he them! Can Obama not see how the loss of empire, no matter how evil, would grate on a people? On this leader of this people? The president went on to say that there is a greater danger of nuclear incineration from a bomb going off in Manhattan than from a Russian strike. 

Be an adult, Obama--lay off the selfies--, be a leader, don't taunt people.
Hey, "Thursday nights are always about revolution." Notice there is no end time on this discussion. If Raymond Lotta is the speaker, the revolutionaries could be there forever. Ray talks a lotta lot.

Thursday Night at Revolution Books 
Thursday, March 27, 7pmTHURSDAY NIGHTS at Rev Books 
are always about revolution.
Discussion of what really happened in
The Chinese Revolution (1949-76) 
This discussion will cover the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (1966-76).

Monday, March 24, 2014

"Russian Spring," Aleksandr Dugin.

This was published by Mr. Dugin, very influential in Russia and with Putin, on March 9.

Scenario Russian spring

1. Kiev takes a waiting position, concentrates its troops on the border with the Crimea, and threatens, but takes no direct action. The U.S. strongly pressures Russia, freezing accounts, and actively wages information war, but they and NATO avoid direct clashes. Kiev receives substantial support from the West, but focuses on domestic issues. The border with Russia is closed.

The referendum [in the Crimea on whether to join Russia] passes with minimal problems. The vast majority vote for joining Russia. No country recognizes the referendum except Russia. Russia raises the question of retaliatory actions if it receives Crimea into Russia. Both chambers of the Duma promptly ratify the annexation. Crimea is returned to Russia. Russian forces enter.

The West rages strong pressure on Russia. Militants in the North Caucasus and the fifth column in Moscow are activated. Putin is supported by everyone. His popularity among the people climaxes. This helps him cope with internal challenges.

2. In eastern Ukraine, Kiev starts to take tough punitive measures. There is a straight nationalist dictatorship. Individuals attempt to attack Crimea or commit acts of sabotage. They start taking revenge on Russians and the Russian-speaking east and south for the loss of Crimea. This leads to the onset of resistance. The second phase of Ukrainian drama begins: The Battle for New Russia. People wake up at once and quickly. Ukraine establishes a state of emergency, in connection with what is defined as “Muscovite aggression.” The last traces of democracy are abolished. Elections are held in May in wartime.

3. The nationalists arrange a series of terrorist attacks in Russia. In Russia itself, the regime evolves, and starts to clean out the fifth column.

4. In Novorossia, resistance increases and gradually moves to the phase of direct rebellion against the Kiev henchmen. There is a bloody civil war. Russia deploys massive effective support structure; symmetrically the West supports Kiev. At a certain moment, in response to the sabotage in Russia and bloody actions of the nationalists and the repressive apparatus of Kiev against civilians and the east of Ukraine, Russia sends its troops into the east. The West threatens nuclear war. This is the existential moment for Putin. But he cannot stop. Going hard (possibly with heavy losses), Novorossia is liberated. The Left-bank Ukraine is conquered, with its border along the Dnieper. A new government is founded — for example, Ukraine or Novorossia. Or a version of Crimea may be repeated.

5. The Right-bank Ukraine, which does not recognize secession (as Yugoslavia under Milosevic and later Serbia against Kosovo), forms a new de facto Ukraine-2 state. NATO bases are immediately 
located on its territory, stopping the possibility of Russian move to Kiev.

6. The new rigidly nationalistic Ukrainian government quickly comes to a crisis. Direct clashes begin 
between ethnic groups (Ruthenians, Hungarians, Poles, Romanians, other minorities) and on political grounds (power loss blamed for half the territories of Ukraine). The state weakens. The process of new secessions begins.

7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as the main element of the European Conservative Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia’s position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the protection of multipolarity, continentalism, and new conservatism (the Fourth Political Theory).

8. In western Ukraine, Ukraine-2, a pro-European (pro-German) political force comes to power that begins to soften anti-Russian policy and moves away from the U.S.

9. Across Europe, the de-Americanization process begins. An autonomous European armed force is created independent of NATO on the basis of the German Armed Forces and the French.

10. A new great Continental Association is formed, as a confederation of Europe and Eurasia, the European Union and the Eurasian Union. Russian, Ukrainians and Europeans are on one side of the barricades, the Americans on the other. American hegemony and dominance of the dollar as well as domination of Atlanticism, liberalism and the financial oligarchy is ended. A new page in world 
history begins. The Slavs are reunited not against Europe, but with Europe in the framework of a 
multipolar polycentric world. From Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Okay, well if this guy is exemplar of the new "thinking" in Russia, so influential with Putin, Europe and the US have nothing to worry about. Dugin's "scenario," his vision...he needs to have his vision checked. And lay off the LSD a few days beforehand. 


Last August protesters against the non-coup that ousted democratically-elected president Mohammad Morsi, stormed a police station in Minya and one police officer was killed. There was a trial begun today in the killing. One trial, 529 accused. The trial began, and was cut short by the judges, who pronounced the 529 guilty and sentenced them to death. One death, one trial, one day, 529 death sentences.


Still not located but Malaysia's Prime Minister announced today that it went down in the south Indian Ocean an "all lives are lost."
The G8 kicked Russia out today. It's now the G7.


From the weekend:

There is a sense in which Vladimir Putin has given up on on America. His view: America is always bitching at him and Russia about something; America doesn't care about Russia's interests; He is truly mystified, hurt and angry by the personal criticism that has come his way since he became president again; In the past he cared very much about what Official America thought of him and his country but since 2012 he has cared much less. Putin is puzzled and off-put at the charges that his own election was not up to America's standards of fairness, in America's opinion. The same with the corruption and personal enrichment criticism. Henry Kissinger, if I recall correctly, gently remonstrated Official America, to let up a little on this criticism.

Putin has mentioned the Sochi Olympics as one of his grievances. Americans crabbed at him about the cost, about the contrast with the living standards of ordinary Sochi residents; they crabbed about whether the weather would hold up; about his treatment of gays and lesbians; they bitched about security.

There was that one round of Sunday talk shows when there seemed to be a concerted American effort to undermine his Olympics on security. Peter King I remember was one of the them, and at least one other person, got on the talk shows and spoke pretty alarmingly about security concerns in Sochi. This was right after there was a bombing at a train station that killed a lot of people but the bombing did happen quite a distance from Sochi. American officials told the media they were concerned that Russia wasn't sharing security information with them. And there was, as I recall anyway, more than one "news cycle" worth of that. It went on for some time time, more than a week it seems to me, a couple, a few, weeks maybe. The U.S. was going to "beef up" it's "Rapid Response Team" or whatever the hell they call it to evacuate! Americans if there was an "incident," i.e. if Putin couldn't protect them. Anybody remember where this American beefing up was to occur? In the Black Sea. Gradually, that "narrative" played itself out, there were more people, athletes, other countries, other Official Americans, who "pushed back" and finally, but pretty shortly before the opening of the games as I recall, Obama came out and gave his blessing: the Sochi Olympics would be safe. And then didn't attend the Games. Sent a gay and lesbian team to represent him. Putin came to see all of this as a "conspiracy," as a concerted effort by Official America to ruin his Olympics. The undersigned idiot blogger had the same thought! My guess is this is why Obama threw in that seeming non sequitur congratulating Putin on the success of his Paralympics.  

He sees Official America as preachy, bitchy, hypocrites. International law: you trumpet it when it suits your interests, ignore it when it doesn't, and never see Russian interests anywhere. You invade where you want to invade, when you want to invade, and your attitude toward your "partners" is "if you're not with us, you're against us." (Bush43 or Rummy actually said that.) Interests: the Obamas are proud pragmatists. It's a cynical philosophy. Putin has, or sees himself as having, a moral-based political vision, and he is dismissive and cynical about the Obamas cynical pragmatism.

On the issues, and they are many and fundamental, that divide America, Europe and Russia, Putin has concluded that he is right and that is an intractable position in which to find an opponent.

This was not in the weekend roundup, this is just my own thought: Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, that
mad Irish woman, Victoria Nuland. I don't like them. They preach, they bitch, they don't sound tough
 or look tough, men aren't intimidated by women yelling at them, they don't like it, it makes the men
contemptuous of the women. These women anyway look and sound ridiculous when they do it. The photos of the US ambassador to the UN, that daughter of Erin, confronting Churkin, standing over him and berating him in a sweater too big for her: Embarrassing. Not taken seriously. Taken
contemptuously. If Bill Clinton was America's first "black president," Barack Obama may be America's first female president and America's first female president walks alone.

Also from the weekend: Ellen Berry was right. It is not just Americans and Europeans who afflict Putin. It is his own liberals, Alexei Navalny, Pussy Riot, all those who dreamed publicly of a "Russia without Putin." And so he doesn't care as much what they think either and jails them to make the point.

All bad, it's all bad, and not all Putin's fault. Not by a long stretch. But the worst, and the still unexplained is what he has against the Foreign Ministry, why he cut them out on Ukraine, wouldn't
take Lavrov's phone call for godssake and is making decisions now with the advice of virulent anti-Americans, cranks, crack pots, Rasputins. Yes, Rasputins. Ras-Putin. That's worst of all.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Oh my God, look how big the girls are!  Hey! Malia, Sasha, quit growing up so fast!  

Damn kids these days, can't leave 'em alone for a minute.
We should like to make page-viewers acquainted with Nina Shtanski:

Nin...Ms.Shtanski is the "Foreign Minister" of, T-r-a-n-s-n-i-s-t-r-a, sorry, i-a, Transnistria. We should like to make page-viewers acquainted with Transnistria:

You see that little red scar...Okay: That big gray blob in the upper right: Rus. The biggest of the gray blobs to the left of Rus: Ukraine. You see the red scar now, in the lower left of Ukraine? Transnistria. That mini-Italian boot to the left of Transnistria is Moldova. The rest of that shit, I don't know what it is, I didn't look it up.

Transistria, Transnistria, is not, like, a "country," I don't know what it is, a state or something, and so technically doesn't need a Foreign Minister but it has one in Ms. Shtanski and Ms. Shtanski has called on Vladimir Putin and the Rooskis to invade invade Transistria, and I don't know, liberate it, or clutch it to Russia's bosom or something. At some point, like this millennium, in the last 14 years, okay, the Transistrians voted to "eventually" become one with the bosom of Mother Rus. Putin, we don't care, go ahead, Obama won't tell you that but he doesn't care either. Knock your frigging self out, whydontsha.